List of Events

1987 The Andhra Pradesh State Passed draconian AP Endowments Act

30/87 (Act 30/87) (hereinafter referred as the Act) overnight without

referring to a Select Committee as demanded by the Opposition in

the Legislature. In contrast the 1966 Endowments Act took over a

year deliberation by the Select Committee. The State was stubborn

and just went by Justice Challa Kondiah commission report and did

not heed to the findings of a symposium organized by the Petitioner

with eminent people in Osamania University conducted on the faulty

recommendations of the commission and the devastating impact it

would have on the low income temples and the livelihood of the

Archakas and other temple employees.

1987 The Act was challenged in the AP High Court which stays certain

sections and the cases are transferred to This Hon’ble Court.

1995 State Convinced This Hon’ble Court that the Justice Challa Kondiah

commission had done extensive study of temple administration of all

classes of temples even though the low income category was

completely ignored by the Commission. Eventually it was this

lacunae that caused immense damage to the temple system in the

State of AP through the draconian 30/87 Endowments Act.

It ensured that all arguments in This Hon’ble Court were centered

around big temples like TTD and there was no time for arguments

relating to the impact of the Act on small temples where it had a

weak case.

1995 Petitioner as President Telangana Archaka Samakhya forced to file

written arguments which This Hon’ble Court acknowledged and

constituted Committees to study the veracity. In the written

 2

arguments it was pointed out that the Act would cause severe

damage to low income temples and the livelihood of Archakas

1996 The Committees appointed by this Hon’ble Court submitted their

reports and substantiate the claims of the Petitioner written

arguments (on behalf of Telangana Archaka Samakhya) that low-

income temples and livelihood of Archakas would be severely

impacted by the provisions of the 30/87 Endowments Act. The State

ensured that the official copy of these reports was not available to

the Organizations such as Telangana Archaka Samakhya and AP

Archaka Organizations to file their response in SC. It was with great

difficulty that even copies could be available.

1996 State accepts the findings of the Committees that low income

temples and the livelihood of Archakas would be severely impacted

and tells This Hon’ble Court that it will allow these temples to fend

for themselves

1997 This Hon’ble Court accepted the recommendations of the

Committees and also records various commitments of the State that

it would allow low income temples to fend for themselves and also

make suitable amendments to the Act so as to preserve the low

income temples and provide relief to the Archakas

1998 State instead of following through with its commitments to this

Hon’ble Court starts to actually increase number of Executive Officers

and makes suitable amendments to the Act to pay their salary from

consolidated fund and initiates moves to takeover large number of

low income temples completely against the Orders of This Hon’ble

Court

1998 Several Organizations including Telangana Archaka Samakhya File

Writ Petitions bringing to the notice of the SC the way the State was

not implementing the assurances based on which the Act was

upheld for low income category temples

 3

1998-2001 Nothing much happens as the Writ Petitions get stuck behind the

Review Petitions filed by Tirumala Archakas in 1997.

2001 Shri Bheemasena Chary Archaka Alampur temple sacrifices his life on

the Bell of the temple to bring to the notice of the Society the issues

faced by Archakas due to the non-implementation of the orders of

this Hon’ble Court by the State

2001-2004 A grassroot movement in AP against the draconian 30/87 Act starts

spearheaded by the Petitioner from Chilkur Balaji Temple and

Political parties forced to include the promise to amend the

legislation

1998-2002 State initiates takeover attempt of Chilkur Balaji Temple to silence the

voice for change and the resistance to its control over Hindu

Temples. The action of the State is repulsed by Devotees standing

firmly with the Petitioner. The State also wanted to silence the

Petitioner with this approach so that the cases filed in this Hon’ble

Court is weakened

2004 A new Government formed and it initiates an all party meeting on

the plight of the temple system and the Archaka community decision

taken to amend the Act suitably

2004-2007 Several protests by devotees and Archakas and against the full might

of the Endowments Department the Bill to amend the Act is finally

tabled in assembly but had to be referred to a Select Committee.

Statement of Objects and Reasons record that due to the effect of

provisions of 30/87 Act low income temples virtually closed down

and Archakas became impoverished.

2004-2007 State Endowments Officials initiate a second takeover attempt of

Chilkur Balaji Temple to silence the Petitioner and block any attempts

to amend the legislation. Since the temple was being run in a unique
 4

way and enjoyed tremendous support from devotees a different

approach to takeover was followed :-

Retired State Endowments Official filed a WP (PIL) in AP High Court

asking for a takeover of the temple by the Government

The AP Endowments Official who was a responded told the Court

that a decision on the application of provisions of the Act to Chilkur

Balaji Temple will be taken.

The AP High Court without considering the contention of the

petitioner fully that as per the orders of SC the temple needs to be

exempted gave an order that was used by the State officials to try

and takeover the temple under the guise of contempt, since the

temple management enjoyed great devotee support.

The Petitioner approached This Hon’ble Court with Special Leave

Petition 5211 of 2006 and this Hon’ble Court clarified the AP High

Court order and thus saved the temple from State takeover through

its order dated 31st March 2006.

Even after This Hon’ble Court order a new approach of discovering a

old Founder was invented by the State officials and a forcible

attempt to take over the temple on May 18th 2006 was made

against the District Court stay orders.

The devotees repulsed this attempt and the same was cancelled on

the same day and a committee was constituted to look into the

matter.

The three member Expert Committee formed on the basis of this

Hon’ble Courts order in the Special Leave Petition finally

recommended exemption for Chilkur Balaji Temple from provisions

of the Act.

The voice of the temples for change is still being heard in the temple

premises.
 5

2007 Select Committee gives historic report and Act finally amended. After

over a decade the State follows through on its commitment to This

Hon’ble Court to make suitable amendments to the Act in the

meantime lot of damage to the temple system is done. Select

Committee also recommends measures to formulate scheme for

better emoluments to Archakas and proposes a Dharmika Parishad

with all powers of the Government to oversee the entire temple

administration

2008 State files affidavit in the Review Petitions bringing to the notice of

This Hon’ble Court the amendments and asking for the disposal of

the Review Petitions

2007-2011 Struggle to get the Act implemented as there is considerable

resistance to its implementation by State Endowments Officials.

2011 State appointed Committee on Service Issues of Temple Employees

give historic report documenting for the first time how the State had

ruined the temple system in the State of AP and gives a series of

recommendations it asks for immediate constitution of a strong

Dharmika Parishad with all powers of the Government and to initiate

steps for better emoluments for Archakas. The Committee notes that

several orders of This Hon’ble Court were not implemented at the

grass root level by the State with the result the temple system

suffered and Archakas became impoverished

The State does not bother to initiate any steps to implement the

recommendations of the Committee except for a few ones which are

not having any benefit to low income category temples and

Archakas and other Employees

2013 This Hon’ble Court disposes off the Review Petitions based on the

affidavit filed by the State and the Tirumala Archakas on the several
 6

amendments made to the Act noting that the petitions have become

infructuous

This Hon’ble Court refuses to monitor the implementation of the

amended Act and asks Archakas and devotees to seek ‘appropriate

remedy’ for the non-implementation of the amended Act provisions

and the Writ Petitions pending from 1998 (WP 290 of 1998, WP 565

of 1999 etc.) are finally allowed to be withdrawn.

The Archakas and devotees interested in better management of Hindu

Temples continue to agitate on the streets seeking an ‘appropriate

remedy’ for the issue

2014 State gets bifurcated and new state of Telangana formed.

2014 State of AP initiates move to amend Act through Act 8 of 2014 by

first cancelling the Dharmika Parishad to fill temple trust boards with

more political appointees. No serious attempt is still made to

implement the provisions of the amended Act and also the 2011

recommendations of the Committee on Service Issues of Temple

Employees. Archaka and other temple employees continue to agitate

for better emoluments. Thus, the amendments enforced by the said

amendment Act is detrimental to very future of the temple system

2014 The said amendment Act was challenged in W.P. No. 29264 of 2014 (PIL)

before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The petitioner also filed an

application for intervention in the writ petition.

2015 The Hon’ble High Court vide its order struck down the amending

Act as it is violative of the Constitution.

 7

2015 Aggrieved by the said order the State of Andhra Pradesh filed the

above Special Leave petition.

28.04.2016 The petitioner herein filed applications I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2016 for

permission to intervene and to substantiate the points raised in the

intervention application.

08.08.2016 This Hon’ble Court issued notice in the applications and directed the

State of Andhra Pradesh to file counter in 4 weeks. However, no

counter was filed.

01.09.2017 The petitioner also filed I.A. No. 84368 of 2017 Seeking permission to

place on record additional facts and additional documents. The said

application was also pending

2017-2018 After lot of struggle a preliminary notification of the Rules to

implement the amended Act is given in February 2017 but till date

no final notification given and somehow the State is able to get

away with such impunity even though it is over two decades that it

promised such an action to this Hon’ble Court.

Till date even after a decade of the amendment Act 33 of 2007 no attempt made

to constitute a Dharmika Parishad with eminent people and transfer

the powers of the Government. Such Sections have been used as a

tool to convince this Hon’ble Court of good intentions of the State

while continuing to control and mis-management of Hindu temples

and impoverishment of Archakas and other temple employees at the

grass root level.

 8

Net effect of all the above is that a sample few ACB raids on State Endowments

Officials are reported in news media and they have amassed wealth

to the tune of 100s of Crores by enabling encroachment of temple

lands. It is only a tip of the iceberg as temples have lost lakhs of acres

to illegal encroachment, low income temple fixed deposits have

been looted the temple ornaments have been looted, temple trust

boards have become rehabilitation centres for politically

unemployed, temple funds are being used for all kinds of expenses.

State Endowments Officials enjoy their high salaries from devotee

donations but low income temple employees are suffering at the

grass root level.

12.01.2018 While so the counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that

the above Special Leave petition has become infructuous and on

that ground the same was dismissed as infructuous without deciding

the questions of law raised in both the Special Leave petition.

However no orders was passed in the application for intervention

filed by the petitioner herein.

The petitioner further submits that his counsel was not present in the Court when

the said order was passed as his name is not shown in the cause list

though the above application for intervention was pending.

22.01.2018 Hence the present Review petition is being filed

9